From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sat Sep 29 2007 - 06:47:58 EDT
> Where is the analysis that the measures to > avoid such crises must lead to greater crises? When I > was in the US, I remember the big "savings and loan > crisis" happened during, I think, Reagan's time. But > it was simply managed by the government and it didn't > bring about a future meltdown of capitalism. My guess > is most of the people don't even remember the savings > and loans crisis now. Hi Ajit: You made a number of good points in your post. While I think that the analogy to hurricanes (a natural event) can be misconstued, you have put your finger - I think - on something important here. The idea that measures to forestall a crisis must lead to hightened crises is a central (yet under- or non- theorized) one of much Marxist literature. I'm not sure when this tradition began (Kautsky?) but it has had many adherents and variations (including Mandel and Mattick). Why does it keep popping up? I guess it's tied to what you believe the effects of state intervention can be (or, expressing the same thing somewhat differently, the role of the state in overcoming crises and maintaining positive rates of capital accumulation). In that sense, what is under-theorized here is the role of the state in capitalism. The idea concerning the "limits to state intervention" either needs to be expanded upon or reconsidered, imo. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT